A New Theory Of A "luminiferous Aether", A Thesis on the Unification of Physics

I suggest that geodesic paths of gravitational motion assumed to be caused by a curvature of space; paths of light observed as being bent in a gravitational field; the red shift in an observed light spectrum as it traverses outward in the gravitational field of its source; the red shift in distant galaxies light spectrum assumed to be primarily due to the Doppler Effect caused by receding galaxies in a rapidly expanding universe; the quantum mechanics of gravity; dark energy; dark matter; and the relativity of time and energy; are all unified in the substance of an accurately defined universal “luminiferous aether” (ether) as proposed by British physicist James Clerk Maxwell.

With the dismissal of Maxwell’s “luminiferous aether” as a result of the famous MMX and then with the resounding success of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, both of which are held to disprove the need of and even the existence of such a substance to facilitate the propagation of light, any further scientific investigatory research to discover if such a substance exists has been all but abandoned. At the time of the introduction of the ether theory, and even by the time of Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity, many of the now proven principles of EM radiation were not known. Based upon an in-depth analysis using all proven data of now known properties of radiated EM energy, I propose the composition and functionality of the elusive ether is now defined in a copyrighted paper I have registered with the Library of Congress and is consistent with all experiments testing the phenomena of special relativity, general relativity, and relativistic quantum mechanics.

As defined in this paper the universal ether is suggested as what constitutes the composition of the “dark energy" glue that ties all four interaction forces in Nature together, bonding all atomic components in atomic structures together in a quantum entropy pattern of motion as required to sustain their interdependent coexistence, facilitates the propagation of EM radiation, and accounts for the continual creation of new matter as suggested in the Bondi/Gold/Hoyle steady state theory to maintain an unending existence of the universe and I suggest the new matter thus created constitutes the substance of “dark matter.”

My new theory as registered with the Library of Congress, "On the composition and Functionality of the Luminiferous Aether and Quantum Gravitation," has never been proposed before, but I'm having a difficult time trying to have it reviewed by a peer group because it cost so much, and I can't afford it. When Einstein submitted his paper on his "Theory of Special Relativity" he never had to pay such an exorbitant fee, so why now? I'm hoping that there will be those reading this message, maybe even you, that might know of a way to submit my paper without costing so much.

you should see this as an investment. once you create a name for yourself, they will be begging to publish your work. if you really believe in your theory, you'll be necessary to sacrifice, right?

Seeing as how you registered the copyright, you can, say, use the free web site capability available most anywhere to publish it.

I'm sure many of the posters here will be glad to critique your work for free, thus saving you the cost and humiliation of rejection by established journals.

That's what the word geodesic means -- you have assumed the curvature of space by calling the path of an object in free-fall a "geodesic path" so since this is the first example in the first sentence you gave us, we initially form a negative opinion of your writing skills, your reasoning skills and your ability to comprehend the physical predictions of modern theory.

20th century observations

Not yet observed, but a topic of much discussion as to what theories give both the correct large action and small mass limits.

A 21th century inference based on the success of GR to explain observations.

A 20th century inference based on the success of GR to explain observations.

this phrase is confused. Better to write "the Lorentzian nature of time and space, energy and momentum"

What does being British have to do with it? Also, why are you picking on Maxwell when Newton's hypothesis was that light was passed as particles with space-like periodic properties, a viewpoint that was rejected by the 19th century and resurrected successfully with modifications by Einstein?

What most was done was a demonstration that if such a substance exists then neither it nor physical rulers obey either Galilean Relativity or the slightly different mathematical structure of Newton's absolute space and time. At the time, Maxwell's actual equations survived, as they can always be written in a Lorentzian covariant form so that all observables agree between different inertial frames of reference.

Hyperbole. Research to discover if such a Galilean substance exists has been largely abandoned. But if you twist your definition of substance enough, such a substance was established by the discovery and interpretation of the photoelectric effect.

Here is where you need examples. It is wholly unclear if you are familiar with the photoelectric effect, with dispersion, with H. Fizeau's tests of moving dielectrics, (all pre-GR) or with the 1935 observation of the angular momentum of light.

Fiction is copyrighted. Useful inventions can be patented. Useful scientific theories of the workings of nature are by international convention neither protected by copyright or patents, although the form in which you write up such theories may also be copyrightable. That's because Nature is considered the true author of the workings, and as a researcher the author of the useful theory or new observation is considered a discoverer.

Actually, for dark energy to have the properties it has, it must NOT interact strongly with matter or any of the four forces except gravity.

Here's such a collection of loony gibberish and misuse of terms that I will not attempt to parse and correct.

While this is closer to your thesis, I don't think your claim is "facilitates" but rather "allows." "Facilitates" implies that some EM radiation propagates without it, or EM propagates less well without it.

Why don't you qualify some of these as British? Why are you picking on Maxwell by using all three names like a vexed mother in 1950's television?

Where is your observation that the amount of dark matter increases over time?

Possibly because it is not a useful description of the reality measured by experiment and observation? Also why aren't you doing the minimum and getting a free blog to post your idea? You haven't given an author's name or catalog number, so I won't be able to find any of your ideas.

What do you mean peer group? Do you mean your peers, British Peers like Lord Mockton, or the peers of those who are actually well-versed in all the observations, experiments and theories that you reference in this teaser PR post?

What is your evidence for this statement? Going back to Newton, he paid to get his works in print.

Inflation? Larger audiences?

That's a weird use of the Third and Second persons. And see, kind people have already responded to your plea! Wow, what great readers we have here!

This post has been edited by rpenner on Apr 30 2010, 07:24 PM

Sunsphere


I'll make you a deal...

All you have to do is to convince Rpenner or Flyingbuttressman that your theory is correct and I will fund your paper myself.

Should be easy right?

Dear friends: Why do I have to do this? I was hoping, evidently mistakenly, that a person of intellect with an exploratory mind may recognize that I was saying nothing to substantiate an absolute, but only to open the mind to a never before explored approach. That’s why my opening was “I suggest.” I thought that true scientific minds were always looking for new ways to approach unanswered questions. Evidently rpenner is not of that mind. I know that most of those reading this are of that caliber, and they are the ones I hope to work with. Evidently rpenner has it all figured out already. No need for further scientific investigation. He has no respect for other views, only his own. Such a shallow mind, such narcissism! I don’t claim to have it all figured out yet, and will never think I do. In response to his disparaging remarks I submit the following. Even in this I make no claim of any kind, only a suggestion that we all respect one another’s ideas and show a little consideration. Thank you to those who have made encouraging remarks. I would do the same for you, even if I were not in full agreement with some of your conjectures. We could work on it together in a cooperative manner. This is how it’s supposed to work with a true scientific approach. So let us proceed:

1. Sunsphere: I suggest that geodesic paths of gravitational motion assumed to be caused by a curvature of space;

rpenner: That's what the word geodesic means -- you have assumed the curvature of space by calling the path of an object in free-fall a "geodesic path" so since this is the first example in the first sentence you gave us, we initially form a negative opinion of your writing skills, your reasoning skills and your ability to comprehend the physical predictions of modern theory.

Who’s “we”? Do you speak for all the scientific community? Are you the most intelligent of all? Wow! I must have addressed god! Such arrogance! Yes, I could have worded my generalized statement about “geodesic paths of gravitational motion assumed to be caused by a curvature of space,” differently, but my key word is “assumed.” By definition, in general relativity the concept is that gravity is not a force like other forces, but is instead attributed to a curved space-time geometry, and a geodesic generalizes the notion of a "straight line" to curved space-time. This as the basis of gravitational motion with a dismissal of it being a force, is as of yet not a substantiated fact, it is still only an assumption that so far has not been disqualified. In fact many discoveries have been attained with no disparity.

2. Sunsphere: paths of light observed as being bent in a gravitational field; the red shift in an observed light spectrum as it traverses outward in the gravitational field of its source; the red shift in distant galaxies light spectrum assumed to be primarily due to the Doppler Effect caused by receding galaxies in a rapidly expanding universe;

rpenner: 20th century observations

Yes, I at least know that much. It’s just points of reference. Is that OK?

3. Sunsphere: the quantum mechanics of gravity;

rpenner: Not yet observed, but a topic of much discussion as to what theories give both the correct large action and small mass limits.

I agree. Wow! I got two right.

4. Sunsphere: dark energy;

rpenner: A 21th century inference based on the success of GR to explain observations.

Wow, Wow! I agree. Three right.

5. Sunsphere: dark matter;

rpenner: A 20th century inference based on the success of GR to explain observations.

Again, yes. I better watch out. That’s four right!

6. Sunsphere: and the relativity of time and energy;

rpenner: this phrase is confused. Better to write "the Lorentzian nature of time and space, energy and momentum"

I screwed up. I didn’t use god’s choice of words. A much lengthier dissertation would be necessary for defining the special and general principles of relativity. My choice of words is only more succinct as a point of reference for this abstract.

7. Sunsphere: are all unified in the substance of an accurately defined universal “luminiferous aether” (ether) as proposed by British physicist James Clerk Maxwell.

rpenner: What does being British have to do with it? Also, why are you picking on Maxwell when Newton's hypothesis was that light was passed as particles with space-like periodic properties, a viewpoint that was rejected by the 19th century and resurrected successfully with modifications by Einstein?

My reference to the renowned physicist James Clerk Maxwell as being British was derived from an earlier, what I believed at the time was a trusted reference. In this I am embarrassed, because he was actually Scottish. My comment was only intended as an honorary acknowledgment; I was not “picking” on him at all! I greatly respect that he is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th-century physics, and he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions. As for the reference to Newton’s and Einstein’s later contributions, my statement is only as reference to the ether concept being a very important consideration strongly proposed in Maxwell’s research. Does rpenner understand grammar?

8. Sunsphere: With the dismissal of Maxwell’s “luminiferous aether” as a result of the famous MMX and then with the resounding success of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, both of which are held to disprove the need of and even the existence of such a substance to facilitate the propagation of light,

rpenner: What most was done was a demonstration that if such a substance exists then neither it nor physical rulers obey either Galilean Relativity or the slightly different mathematical structure of Newton's absolute space and time. At the time, Maxwell's actual equations survived, as they can always be written in a Lorentzian covariant form so that all observables agree between different inertial frames of reference.

Very interesting additional schooling but this has nothing to do with what I’m suggesting. What I said stands true as a point of reference.

9. Sunsphere: any further scientific investigatory research to discover if such a substance exists has been all but abandoned.

rpenner: Hyperbole. Research to discover if such a Galilean substance exists has been largely abandoned. But if you twist your definition of substance enough, such a substance was established by the discovery and interpretation of the photoelectric effect.

Who’s twisting? Again, the key is “all but abandoned,” the same as your words “largely abandoned.” I do not dismiss alternate discoveries. It’s just that they have nothing to do with what I’m suggesting. Talk about hyperbole, a totally unnecessary expansion by god rpenner.

10. Sunsphere: At the time of the introduction of the ether theory, and even by the time of Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity, many of the now proven principles of EM radiation were not known.

rpenner: Here is where you need examples. It is wholly unclear if you are familiar with the photoelectric effect, with dispersion, with H. Fizeau's tests of moving dielectrics, (all pre-GR) or with the 1935 observation of the angular momentum of light.

Why examples? No disagreement with your unnecessary addition. Again, I’m only referring to the fact that “at the time.” I only said “many of the now proven principles.” I could just as easily have said “many of the later proven principles.” Why so much picking on words?

11. Sunsphere: Based upon an in-depth analysis using all proven data of now known properties of radiated EM energy, I propose the composition and functionality of the elusive ether is now defined in a copyrighted paper I have registered with the Library of Congress and is consistent with all experiments testing the phenomena of special relativity, general relativity, and relativistic quantum mechanics.

rpenner: Fiction is copyrighted. Useful inventions can be patented. Useful scientific theories of the workings of nature are by international convention neither protected by copyright or patents, although the form in which you write up such theories may also be copyrightable. That's because Nature is considered the true author of the workings, and as a researcher the author of the useful theory or new observation is considered a discoverer.

Until investigated and scientifically substantiated, by definition, any theory or supposition is in the same categorization of fiction.

12. Sunsphere: As defined in this paper the universal ether is suggested as what constitutes the composition of the “dark energy" glue that ties all four interaction forces in Nature together,

rpenner: Actually, for dark energy to have the properties it has, it must NOT interact strongly with matter or any of the four forces except gravity.

Wow! Right again. I agree. I did not say it interacted strongly.

13. Sunsphere: bonding all atomic components in atomic structures together in a quantum entropy pattern of motion as required to sustain their interdependent coexistence,

rpenner: Here's such a collection of loony gibberish and misuse of terms that I will not attempt to parse and correct.

Why so disparaging? And why does it need to be corrected? Again, this is only a succinct statement. As defined in my hypothesis, the ether acts exactly as stated. The terms are very explanatory when fully understood. No statement like this has ever been written before because this is an original suggestion.

14. Sunsphere: facilitates the propagation of EM radiation,

rpenner: While this is closer to your thesis, I don't think your claim is "facilitates" but rather "allows." "Facilitates" implies that some EM radiation propagates without it, or EM propagates less well without it.

Words! Only god knows how to say it right! I did not use the word “facilitation” which is what rpenner is referring to. By definition “facilitate: make easy, ease, make possible, assist.” As defined in my paper the ether is actually what makes EM propagation possible. Again, a new suggested concept.

15. Sunsphere: and accounts for the continual creation of new matter as suggested in the Bondi/Gold/Hoyle steady state theory to maintain an unending existence of the universe.

rpenner: Why don't you qualify some of these as British? Why are you picking on Maxwell by using all three names like a vexed mother in 1950's television?

Why are you making such disparaging remarks? Hermann Bondi was Anglo-Austrian. Thomas Gold was Austrian. Fred Hoyle was British. They together proposed the now mostly abandoned 'steady state' hypothesis of the universe.

16. Sunsphere: and I suggest the new matter thus created constitutes the substance of “dark matter.”

rpenner: Where is your observation that the amount of dark matter increases over time?

A conjecture based on the unproven interpretation of an observational assumption.

17. Sunsphere: My new theory as registered with the Library of Congress, "On the composition and Functionality of the Luminiferous Aether and Quantum Gravitation," has never been proposed before,

rpenner: Possibly because it is not a useful description of the reality measured by experiment and observation? Also why aren't you doing the minimum and getting a free blog to post your idea? You haven't given an author's name or catalog number, so I won't be able to find any of your ideas.

How can you say it’s not useful? In my post I have only submitted a suggestion abstract, not a description. You have no way to know if it’s useful or not. Are you a scientist or only a self asserted master of all knowledge?

18. Sunsphere: but I'm having a difficult time trying to have it reviewed by a peer group because it cost so much, and I can't afford it.

rpenner: What do you mean peer group? Do you mean your peers, British Peers like Lord Mockton, or the peers of those who are actually well-versed in all the observations, experiments and theories that you reference in this teaser PR post?

Again, why so disparaging? I didn’t say “my peers” I said “a peer group.” I know there are those in the scientific community who work as peer groups in their reviews of submitted papers, in a cooperative and supportive manner. Evidently you are not one of those.

19. Sunsphere: When Einstein submitted his paper on his "Theory of Special Relativity" he never had to pay such an exorbitant fee,

rpenner: What is your evidence for this statement? Going back to Newton, he paid to get his works in print.

Please, read what is said. I did not say that Newton did not pay to publish his works. Again, the key word is “exorbitant.”

20. Sunsphere: so why now?

rpenner: Inflation? Larger audiences?

That still does not explain why a paper can’t at least be openly reviewed. I do not claim that my concept is without flaw, I only desire that it could at least be reviewed with an open mind to the possibilities and receive a thoughtful supportive response, not just disparaging remarks by someone like you who only wants to egotistically proclaim self-asserted authority. The true scientist never approaches new ideas in that manner.

21. Sunsphere: I'm hoping that there will be those reading this message, maybe even you, that might know of a way to submit my paper without costing so much.

rpenner: That's a weird use of the Third and Second persons. And see, kind people have already responded to your plea! Wow, what great readers we have here!

Another slam! You just can’t get away from your assertion of self-acclaimed superiority. I do believe there are those, and I appreciate the true scientific mind. They are friends.

In summary, I wasn’t approaching this as a game or a contest; I was only hoping to discover that there are still those in the scientific community who want to work in a cooperative and contributive manner. I do believe there are those. As long as individuals like rpenner, who by their authoritative and in many ways learned comments, set themselves up as the “we” in the scientific community, many of those who are less schooled will never receive the respect they deserve for open consideration of their ideas. I did not present my suggestion with any attitude of “this is the way it is,” only as a concept that may deserve some investigation, even if not very much. Once fully reviewed I make no claim that what I am suggesting will be substantiated, I only hope to have it reviewed by a true scientist, not an egoist. I hope the same for all others who submit ideas to this forum.

I detect hypocrisy.

It was pointed out many times in the response that you have some basic things wrong with your approach, but since you are a crank, it devolves to an attack on you by "those who would silence new ideas". No matter that you got some things wrong that were adequately explained many years ago...

SS: Ah, one of those slippery trollish cranks. Too bad it's not worth anybody's time to deal with you in detail. Unfortunately, it's been done before with others and everyone's pretty much worn out with all the fun. But, you do seem to have mastered most of the typical troll techniques of sliding by criticism while simultaneously righteously wrapping yourself in the flag of the ignored lone voice in the wilderness.

But I digress.

Just put your work online somewhere. Hell, some of the cranks here have actually gone to the extent of publishing real books. That's crank commitment.

Until you show at least minimal effort at producing some actual results, you'll not rise to the honored plateau of the cranks we've seen here in the past. You're just a wanne-be crank at this point. A mere poser.

To bad you can't sort the member's list by "most negative feedback". Then you can study the works of the Master Trolls. Has this forum fallen in such a state of disrespect we no longer can attract quality cranks and trolls? Is this what it's come to?

SS actually thinks I am claiming that Maxwell was not British, missing the point entirely.

Sunsphere


I already made you what I think is a most fair offer...

All you have done so far is to attack those you should be trying to convince.

Do you want the funding or not?

Pay me and I'll post it on it's own website.

Hell, I'll even proofread it for style and grammar, but the math errors and logical hiatus must remain...

I apologize. I read everything wrong. I now understand that this forum is reserved for those who are perfect. I said not one word about my thinking my suggestion was without flaw. In fact I said directly that I did not claim that. So anyway, best of luck to you all.

Wow, when did I become credible?

Perfection is not required.
What is required is humility. There is always a very strong chance that you are dead wrong. You need to determine whether criticism is accurate, and then adjust your understanding. If you refuse to change, then you have no place here.

Sunsphere

Sheesh... what a whiner.

All I said was that you had to convince one person... and I would fund your paper myself. How is that asking to be perfect?



flyingbuttressman

That's hard to pin down exactly. It's like asking where you were when Kennedy was shot... everyone would have a different answer.